Harvard can't end racial discrimination in admissions. To get into Harvard, a teenager needs:
1) To know about Harvard and elite universities in general. Believe it or not, research shows that most qualified poor kids don't apply because they don't have any knowledge about the value of an elite education or that places like Harvard exist. Anecodotally, I know a couple of brilliant ones from poor backgrounds who went to their state universities simply because they had no idea there were other options - in fact, it was an imaginative stretch to go to college at all.
2) Family and community support for a college education, much less an expensive elite one far away. Sure, some super-teen can overcome this, but it's a major reason kids don't apply or drop out at high rates. My two friends were constantly asked, why would you want to go to college? Kids in these situations are in alien environments at college (that it seems perfectly normal to white middle-class kids should tell you exactly what environment it is) where they have few people who can relate to them (Edit: and an institution not built for their needs), then they go home and are asked why they are wasting their time and family's money. And as they absorb university life, they also become alienated from people at home who don't have those life experiences or opportunities.
3) Money: There is a very strong relationship between family money and college education.
4) An excellent high school education: Something else that correlates strongly with the family they come from.
5) Connections: It's not what you know, but who you know. Do you think all those kids in Harvard are there on merit? What about the legacies? The big donors' kids? The kids with recommendations from alums? Those aren't avenues available to most kids.
And all these things have a strong racial component. If Harvard can eliminate these factors then sure, why not eliminate affirmative action too?
> Family and community support for a college education, much less an expensive elite one far away. Sure, some super-teen can overcome this, but it's a major reason kids don't apply or drop out at high rates. My two friends were constantly asked, why would you want to go to college? Kids in these situations are in alien environments at college (that it seems perfectly normal to white middle-class kids should tell you exactly what environment it is) where they have few people who can relate to them, then they go home and are asked why they are wasting their time and family's money. And as they absorb university life, they also become alienated from people at home who don't have those life experiences or opportunities.
This feels strangely familiar to me as a guy who moved from a tiny poor-ish European country to Silicon Valley in his late 20's. I know it's not the same, but holy shit, I never thought a random comment on a message board would peg me so well.
At least in my case most of my back-home environment understands the why, even if they do question the rationality of it.
But try to explain to the average Silicon Valley dweller that just ~6 years ago, a $5 purchase was a significant expense, and they have very little to relate to.
There's also an explicit racial component to college admissions that I think plenty of us suspect does actually exist in the form of quotas, higher average scores/academic performance. That part can go pretty easily.
Are you saying none of these problems could be solved by putting a team of professionals on it? For example, maybe six PR and marketing people working full time for four years couldn't make a dent in #1?
I always want to comment on articles like this and share my opinion, but then I worry that if mass public opinion shifts or changes a decade from now, everything I've said about a touchy subject will be archived online for any future employer to search. There always seems to be a delicate art to wording one's thoughts in a "neutral" way on issues like this.
I agree it's a concern, but the truth doesn't change with a trend. Slavery was wrong when it was trendy in some places and it's still wrong now that it's not. What do you think of the people who held their tongues? What about the ones that spoke out?
I despise intellectual trends. If it was a good/bad idea before, that hasn't changed because the idea (or the entire subject) became un/fashionable. Privacy is one such issue that comes to mind.
Not to rain on your parade, but it's gone beyond things you say online. Ask the two gentlemen who lost their jobs for making a dongle joke/repo forking joke at PyCon. They're named and shamed for the rest of their lives because somebody objected to a private conversation they were having.
I feel in the near future, what we say, buy, and do will be easily available data to anyone. I think employees, Insurers, law enforcement, etc. will be able to tie data to specific IP's, and even if you have been careful not to use your real name--it won't matter.
I think we need federal laws enacted protecting privacy. I would like to see a universal Delete law. Meaning if I wanted everything from my IP address, or my name permently deleted from Facebook, Google, etc. servers they would be required to do so. It would also be a felony to sell, or even give away data.
HN has no real name policy. Why not sign up for another account that you use to discuss riskier topics? As long as you're careful to not include identifying details in posts, you should be okay.
Missing out on substantive discourse simply because of fear would make me sad.
Because your birth certificate lists your first name as Xcelerate? At least you didn't list your full name as it appears on your resume 'Xcelerate Bartholomew Jones'
Less sarcastically, at least here on hacker news you're as anonymous as you want to be. A future employer isn't going to find any comments you post if you remain as anonymous as you currently are.
That is sad. People grow, people mature. Most of us say/do things that we regret years later - it shows that the person has matured compared to 10 years ago.
If an employer rejects an applicant because of some comments they made 10 years ago, maybe one should think twice about working for that employer?
The politically charged data holds the potential to reveal whether Harvard bypasses better-qualified Asian-American candidates in favor of whites, blacks and Hispanics, and the children of the wealthy and powerful, the group argues.
The problem is that "better-qualified" is not some absolute measure. I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient. There are several factors that aren't easily measured. For example:
1. Difficulty of high school course load.
2. Extra academic work. For example, if you've solved P=NP while having a 2.0 GPA -- would anyone care about your GPA?
3. Performance in academic-RELATED activities. If you win the IMO or the spelling bee or the Intel Science competition, etc...
4. Performance in non-academic activities. If you have a platinum album, does that matter? Or being a famous actor? Or creating a game changing app? Or becoming a top rated Go player?
4. Performance in athletics. Would being a Lebron James level talent matter? Winning an Olympic gold in gymnastics?
5. Having highly regarded morals, conviction, and courage. Would Malala get special treatment?
6. Socio-economics. All other things being equal, do we favor a student who has had no advantages over those who have had every economic advantage (best schools, tutors, etc..)?
7. Diversity of life experience (especially if exceptional). Would the child of a President have an advantage getting in? What about the experience of anyone that is fundamentally against the norm of most of the population of the incoming class. Maybe they navigated combat missions for the South Korean Navy.
I do think systemically excluding a certain race is a problem. But I don't think using an old notion of merit is much better.
I think that the only data driven conclusion we can derive from "holistic" admissions that consider every factor stems from what happened in California. Most California public colleges (UC Berkeley, etc.) subscribed to the same school of thought, but when race-based considerations were banned, the Asian American percentage at the school shot up considerably.
The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. I think it's very hard to argue that Asian Americans failed on your aforementioned categories, or that there wasn't a systematic bias against them when considering these facts.
On top of all those very reasonable points, they are building a class. Some characteristic that may be desirable in one, ten or a hundred members of the class may not be desirable in every member of the class. For example, what if you took in all people who were interested in pursuing degrees in mathematics? The math department doesn't have the facilities to teach all those students and the upper class history classes are going to be empty.
It's a matching problem as much or more as it is a ranking problem.
> I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient.
The Technion literally just admits people based on their exam scores, and nothing more. Seems to work for them. There are actually lots of universities in non-American countries that work this way.
Can't 1+2+3 be solved by make your own exam - but make it brutally hard. Like - having no one getting to the top to be expected and a 170 IQ person getting B+. Make it with invisible names.
You admit the first 1000 and have couple of places for people with 4-7 that were very close on the exam but were below the cut off line.
> And if Harvard abolishes tuition for undergrads, Mr. Nader said, “It will ricochet across the Ivy League.”
A proposition like this is really exciting to me! As a recent college grad (though admittedly one who's very lucky to not have loans, though my partner is screwed with them), I am particularly sensitive how how insane it is that college students are sold massive amounts of debt that many will take years to pay back. And a lot of new systems to help students pay them back are ineffective at best and disgusting at worst.
I am intrigued to see what the other motives are here. I doubt that there will be much change in how students pay back college debt, but we do need some sort of real change. I would be really excited to see a cultural shift away from profiteering from student debt.
Harvard also denied discriminating against Jewish applicants before the 70s. Yet Wikipedia says they were one of the worst offenders.
I hate how the article phrases helping underrepresented minorities as hurting Asian Americans. The two things are not related. Universities will discriminate against us even without affirmative action. The Ivy Leagues invented "legacy" and "manliness" as admissions criteria. They will create new forms of discrimination. History repeats. Stop using us as an excuse. Stop driving a wedge between minorities.
Top tier (and/or Ivy league) schools tend to have fairly generous financial aid packages, so this is a less shocking proposal than it might otherwise seem.
The problem of affirmative action is complicated by several things.
One, it is by definition discrimination by race. You are giving preferential treatment to people based on skin color.
Two, it creates distrust between students of different colors. If you know that some black students are accepted based on skin color rather than ability, then you'll start to suspect that the black students in your class didn't earn their ride to college, so to speak. In extreme cases, if you've been denied entry to Harvard, you may suspect that you were left out to leave room for a less-qualified but more "diverse" student.
These two issues combine to not only make affirmative action hypocritical, but also to make it actively harmful. Affirmative action doesn't "fix" racism, it encourages it.
I wonder if they still allow the names of admissions candidates to be revealed to the people who review the applications? It seems that hiding this would be a really basic step.
And no I'm not saying that a name tells you the race. But sometimes it is an indication.
Not saying it's bulletproof; it's not. But it would help. And I can't think of a valid excuse for not doing it.
The principal who hired him told him he was lucky to get the job because they hadn't been planning to take another student teacher. Then Allan's application showed up.
"They scanned through it ... and they saw someone named Jamaal who played basketball, listed Muhammad Ali among his heroes and inspirations, and thought, 'We could use some diversity here, so let's bring this guy on, I think he'd be good for some of our younger minority male students,'" he says.
They do, but that money is restricted as to what it can be used for. From the article:
“There is a common misconception that endowments, including Harvard’s,
can be accessed like bank accounts, used for anything at any time as long
as funds are available,” Jeff Neal, a Harvard spokesman, said. “In reality,
Harvard’s flexibility in spending from the endowment is limited by the fact
that it must be maintained in perpetuity and that it is largely restricted
by the explicit wishes of those who contributed the endowed funds.”
The thing that is never, ever talked about in these discussions is "geographic diversity", or "discrimination" as these folks would see it. Harvard could fill its entire freshman class each year with students from east coast private prep schools. They will never do that because it is just bad for diversity in general. A less qualified student from a public school in Iowa (regardless of race) will eventually get a spot at Harvard over yet another rich kid from a private school in the northeast. Diversity of all kinds is important, and since this article talks about "the children of the wealthy and powerful", they must also talk about the children of the middle class in other parts of the country that will indeed get selected over these elite kids just because they are a "fresh face from the Heartland".
To flesh out one aspect of that: Diversity is valuable to the students. Where would you rather get educated: A school with people from all over the world and from all socio-economic backgrounds, or a school only with people from your hometown?
"And if Harvard abolishes tuition for undergrads, Mr. Nader said, “It will ricochet across the Ivy League.”
And similar top schools, especially private schools in and outside of the Ivy League. My first question would be what impact would this have on schools that actually depend on tuition to pay for things, those that aren't Harvard/Princeton/etc that don't have as huge endowments per student? Would the gap between the quality of the average student widen further between the very very top schools and the other top schools, further entrenching the status quo?
Lots of angst in this article on university admission could be avoided if selection was thought of as a chance to get in, instead of automatic entry and a right.
If you are going continue to use race as part of the equation they why bother with tests? Its really apparent in medical schools where your MCAT score has to be significantly higher; near perfect; to obtain the same rate of admissions as a minority student with the much lower scores.
This cheats both parties in any college admission as the best and brightest may not be able to meet on even ground and you slight those who are pulled up by placing in a situation where they will likely end up dead last in achievement because fellow students just do so much better. That last alone cannot be easily discounted simply for the psychological effects of placing low
There is an important difference between medicine and most other professions.
If, say, Asians are overrepresented among electrical engineers and Blacks are underrepresented compared to the prevalence of those groups in the general population, it doesn't really affect those who will use the devices designed by those electrical engineers. My iPhone works the same for me regardless of whether or not the people who designed the circuits look like me, or in the same community as me, or have the same culture as me. We should still look at the demographics of electrical engineers, of course, to see if it is due to discrimination, but if it turns out that, say, Asian cultural values just tend to make Asians more likely than other groups to go into electrical engineering, that's not inherently a problem.
With doctors it is different. People want a doctor that understands their culture and community, because culture and community can have big influences on their health choices. Doctor demographics being too far from general population demographics is an inherent problem, even if it is not due to any kind of discrimination on medical school or admissions or in the pipeline leading to that.
"Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have proposed requiring that about 90 colleges with endowments of $1 billion or more spend about 25 percent of their annual earnings for tuition assistance — or forfeit their tax exemptions."
That seems like a rational requirement. Does anyone know what institutions like Harvard currently do with their annual earnings from endowments?
No, it does not seem like a rational requirement. It's also none of our business what these institutions do with their earnings. Most of us will never go to Harvard and we need to get over it, regardless of our race.
Build, build and build. My campus is completely unrecognizable from 10 years ago as they keep putting up glamorous new buildings, including a 2nd (2nd!!) art museum.
Current system: you take up a student loan. You go to college. After college, you pay the bank back more than the college cost. Bank pockets the interest, at least 25% of the total.
Proposed system: your parents pay taxes that cover less than the college cost (not everyone has kids that go to college). You go to college. Bank gets nothing. After college, your pay more tax than in current system, but you have no student debt, so you total expenses are significantly lower.
Which system do you think is better (assuming you're not a bank)?
I notice that, generally, the same political groups who want to eliminate race in admissions also want to stop immigration from Mexico and Syria, and to make it more difficult for non-white people to vote.
They always frame it in terms of 'fairness', but I see another pattern. Does anyone really believe they are motivated by fairness? There are people facing far more unfairness in the world and in the U.S. than wealthy white and Asian college applicants - I don't see these groups paying much attention to them.
Perhaps what outrages people about Trump is that he says what many others in his party say, but doesn't use the dog-whistle[1] coded bulls*t words to cover it up.
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
1) To know about Harvard and elite universities in general. Believe it or not, research shows that most qualified poor kids don't apply because they don't have any knowledge about the value of an elite education or that places like Harvard exist. Anecodotally, I know a couple of brilliant ones from poor backgrounds who went to their state universities simply because they had no idea there were other options - in fact, it was an imaginative stretch to go to college at all.
2) Family and community support for a college education, much less an expensive elite one far away. Sure, some super-teen can overcome this, but it's a major reason kids don't apply or drop out at high rates. My two friends were constantly asked, why would you want to go to college? Kids in these situations are in alien environments at college (that it seems perfectly normal to white middle-class kids should tell you exactly what environment it is) where they have few people who can relate to them (Edit: and an institution not built for their needs), then they go home and are asked why they are wasting their time and family's money. And as they absorb university life, they also become alienated from people at home who don't have those life experiences or opportunities.
3) Money: There is a very strong relationship between family money and college education.
4) An excellent high school education: Something else that correlates strongly with the family they come from.
5) Connections: It's not what you know, but who you know. Do you think all those kids in Harvard are there on merit? What about the legacies? The big donors' kids? The kids with recommendations from alums? Those aren't avenues available to most kids.
And all these things have a strong racial component. If Harvard can eliminate these factors then sure, why not eliminate affirmative action too?
[+] [-] Swizec|10 years ago|reply
This feels strangely familiar to me as a guy who moved from a tiny poor-ish European country to Silicon Valley in his late 20's. I know it's not the same, but holy shit, I never thought a random comment on a message board would peg me so well.
At least in my case most of my back-home environment understands the why, even if they do question the rationality of it.
But try to explain to the average Silicon Valley dweller that just ~6 years ago, a $5 purchase was a significant expense, and they have very little to relate to.
[+] [-] kevhsu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xcelerate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
I despise intellectual trends. If it was a good/bad idea before, that hasn't changed because the idea (or the entire subject) became un/fashionable. Privacy is one such issue that comes to mind.
[+] [-] cuckcuckspruce|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marincounty|10 years ago|reply
I think we need federal laws enacted protecting privacy. I would like to see a universal Delete law. Meaning if I wanted everything from my IP address, or my name permently deleted from Facebook, Google, etc. servers they would be required to do so. It would also be a felony to sell, or even give away data.
[+] [-] pcl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curun1r|10 years ago|reply
Missing out on substantive discourse simply because of fear would make me sad.
[+] [-] AlexC04|10 years ago|reply
Less sarcastically, at least here on hacker news you're as anonymous as you want to be. A future employer isn't going to find any comments you post if you remain as anonymous as you currently are.
[+] [-] vijayr|10 years ago|reply
If an employer rejects an applicant because of some comments they made 10 years ago, maybe one should think twice about working for that employer?
[+] [-] e40|10 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10904615
[+] [-] millermp12|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kenjackson|10 years ago|reply
The problem is that "better-qualified" is not some absolute measure. I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient. There are several factors that aren't easily measured. For example:
1. Difficulty of high school course load.
2. Extra academic work. For example, if you've solved P=NP while having a 2.0 GPA -- would anyone care about your GPA?
3. Performance in academic-RELATED activities. If you win the IMO or the spelling bee or the Intel Science competition, etc...
4. Performance in non-academic activities. If you have a platinum album, does that matter? Or being a famous actor? Or creating a game changing app? Or becoming a top rated Go player?
4. Performance in athletics. Would being a Lebron James level talent matter? Winning an Olympic gold in gymnastics?
5. Having highly regarded morals, conviction, and courage. Would Malala get special treatment?
6. Socio-economics. All other things being equal, do we favor a student who has had no advantages over those who have had every economic advantage (best schools, tutors, etc..)?
7. Diversity of life experience (especially if exceptional). Would the child of a President have an advantage getting in? What about the experience of anyone that is fundamentally against the norm of most of the population of the incoming class. Maybe they navigated combat missions for the South Korean Navy.
I do think systemically excluding a certain race is a problem. But I don't think using an old notion of merit is much better.
[+] [-] FlyingLawnmower|10 years ago|reply
The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. I think it's very hard to argue that Asian Americans failed on your aforementioned categories, or that there wasn't a systematic bias against them when considering these facts.
[+] [-] bradleyjg|10 years ago|reply
It's a matching problem as much or more as it is a ranking problem.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|10 years ago|reply
The Technion literally just admits people based on their exam scores, and nothing more. Seems to work for them. There are actually lots of universities in non-American countries that work this way.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
You admit the first 1000 and have couple of places for people with 4-7 that were very close on the exam but were below the cut off line.
[+] [-] LesZedCB|10 years ago|reply
A proposition like this is really exciting to me! As a recent college grad (though admittedly one who's very lucky to not have loans, though my partner is screwed with them), I am particularly sensitive how how insane it is that college students are sold massive amounts of debt that many will take years to pay back. And a lot of new systems to help students pay them back are ineffective at best and disgusting at worst.
I am intrigued to see what the other motives are here. I doubt that there will be much change in how students pay back college debt, but we do need some sort of real change. I would be really excited to see a cultural shift away from profiteering from student debt.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
I hate how the article phrases helping underrepresented minorities as hurting Asian Americans. The two things are not related. Universities will discriminate against us even without affirmative action. The Ivy Leagues invented "legacy" and "manliness" as admissions criteria. They will create new forms of discrimination. History repeats. Stop using us as an excuse. Stop driving a wedge between minorities.
Some links from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
[+] [-] theseatoms|10 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: not a Harvard grad
[+] [-] soperj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dawnbreez|10 years ago|reply
One, it is by definition discrimination by race. You are giving preferential treatment to people based on skin color.
Two, it creates distrust between students of different colors. If you know that some black students are accepted based on skin color rather than ability, then you'll start to suspect that the black students in your class didn't earn their ride to college, so to speak. In extreme cases, if you've been denied entry to Harvard, you may suspect that you were left out to leave room for a less-qualified but more "diverse" student.
These two issues combine to not only make affirmative action hypocritical, but also to make it actively harmful. Affirmative action doesn't "fix" racism, it encourages it.
[+] [-] natch|10 years ago|reply
And no I'm not saying that a name tells you the race. But sometimes it is an indication.
Not saying it's bulletproof; it's not. But it would help. And I can't think of a valid excuse for not doing it.
[+] [-] repsilat|10 years ago|reply
6 Words: 'My Name Is Jamaal ... I'm White'
...
The principal who hired him told him he was lucky to get the job because they hadn't been planning to take another student teacher. Then Allan's application showed up.
"They scanned through it ... and they saw someone named Jamaal who played basketball, listed Muhammad Ali among his heroes and inspirations, and thought, 'We could use some diversity here, so let's bring this guy on, I think he'd be good for some of our younger minority male students,'" he says.
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/06/404432206/six-words-my-name-is...
[+] [-] oska|10 years ago|reply
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/school/tuition-free-mit.html
[2] https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/11/harvard-takes-ano...
[+] [-] givinguflac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] function_seven|10 years ago|reply
“There is a common misconception that endowments, including Harvard’s, can be accessed like bank accounts, used for anything at any time as long as funds are available,” Jeff Neal, a Harvard spokesman, said. “In reality, Harvard’s flexibility in spending from the endowment is limited by the fact that it must be maintained in perpetuity and that it is largely restricted by the explicit wishes of those who contributed the endowed funds.”
[+] [-] lr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] browseatwork|10 years ago|reply
And similar top schools, especially private schools in and outside of the Ivy League. My first question would be what impact would this have on schools that actually depend on tuition to pay for things, those that aren't Harvard/Princeton/etc that don't have as huge endowments per student? Would the gap between the quality of the average student widen further between the very very top schools and the other top schools, further entrenching the status quo?
[+] [-] bootload|10 years ago|reply
Barry Swartz, in my view wrote the definitive article about the mess elite university is in. Read it, "Do College Admissions by Lottery"~ http://nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/31/how-to-improve-t...
Still getting wound up about credentials? ~ http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html
[+] [-] Shivetya|10 years ago|reply
This cheats both parties in any college admission as the best and brightest may not be able to meet on even ground and you slight those who are pulled up by placing in a situation where they will likely end up dead last in achievement because fellow students just do so much better. That last alone cannot be easily discounted simply for the psychological effects of placing low
[+] [-] tzs|10 years ago|reply
If, say, Asians are overrepresented among electrical engineers and Blacks are underrepresented compared to the prevalence of those groups in the general population, it doesn't really affect those who will use the devices designed by those electrical engineers. My iPhone works the same for me regardless of whether or not the people who designed the circuits look like me, or in the same community as me, or have the same culture as me. We should still look at the demographics of electrical engineers, of course, to see if it is due to discrimination, but if it turns out that, say, Asian cultural values just tend to make Asians more likely than other groups to go into electrical engineering, that's not inherently a problem.
With doctors it is different. People want a doctor that understands their culture and community, because culture and community can have big influences on their health choices. Doctor demographics being too far from general population demographics is an inherent problem, even if it is not due to any kind of discrimination on medical school or admissions or in the pipeline leading to that.
[+] [-] danharaj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|10 years ago|reply
That seems like a rational requirement. Does anyone know what institutions like Harvard currently do with their annual earnings from endowments?
[+] [-] its2complicated|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedevil2k|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patmcguire|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattbgates|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morgante|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] semi-extrinsic|10 years ago|reply
Proposed system: your parents pay taxes that cover less than the college cost (not everyone has kids that go to college). You go to college. Bank gets nothing. After college, your pay more tax than in current system, but you have no student debt, so you total expenses are significantly lower.
Which system do you think is better (assuming you're not a bank)?
[+] [-] alasdair_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
They always frame it in terms of 'fairness', but I see another pattern. Does anyone really believe they are motivated by fairness? There are people facing far more unfairness in the world and in the U.S. than wealthy white and Asian college applicants - I don't see these groups paying much attention to them.
Perhaps what outrages people about Trump is that he says what many others in his party say, but doesn't use the dog-whistle[1] coded bulls*t words to cover it up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]